James Calwile v. R. Mauney , 624 F. App'x 124 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7109
JAMES CHARLES CALWILE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
R. H. MAUNEY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:15-cv-02089-TMC)
Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015
Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Charles Calwile, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Charles Calwile seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not
issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Calwile has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny Calwile’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
2
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3